Hi, folks: youve probably all seen all of this stuff in various forms here and elseweb, but Im seeing a deeper entrenchment of Bushwa that might be getting lost in the confusion. Look! Runaway bride!... So when did Tom Cruise have his baby, huh?... J. G. Roberts, Jr. is a fine fellow and will sail through the confirmation process!
Over the past couple of weeks, the fiascos that we all know and love as GTMO and its bastard offspring, abu Ghraib, have not only been back in the news, but have been squelched in the news, to boot.
Well, squelched insofar as BushCos been trying to stuff the toothpaste back into the tube; which would be kinda funny to watch if it werent so messy and sick... and they werent doing such a bang-up job of it.
So I offer the following as a consolidation lacking, sadly, in consolation.
First, we have testimony that we have been not only trashing the Geneva Convention, but also the Uniform Military Code of Justice...
Last Thursday [14 Jul.], South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham convened a hearing of the Personnel Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on the topic of military justice and detention policy. JAGs from each of the military branches testified, as did DoD Principal Deputy General Counsel Daniel DellOrto.
<snip>
Senators Graham and McCain appear committed to drafting legislation dealing with three questions: (i) defining who is an "enemy combatant" that may be detained by the military; (ii) developing rules for military tribunals; and (iii) developing rules for lawful interrogation techniques.
<snip>
The reaction of the Army JAG representative, Major General Thomas Romig, was quite different, however. Senator Levin reported to the panel the Schmidt Report's conclusion that the techniques used at GTMO were consistent with Army Field Manual 34-52 a "pretty shocking" notion, explained Senator Levin, in light of the fact that the Field Manual purports to describe conduct permissible under the Geneva Conventions... Major General Romig testified that the techniques used at GTMO were not "in the spirit of" Army Field Manual 34-52 and that such techniques would not be permitted where Geneva applies. Most strikingly, he twice testified that such techniques violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In particular, Major General Romig testified that such conduct would constitute "maltreatment of subordinates" under the UCMJ a provision of the law that the military has used to prosecute numerous instances of abuse during the War on Terror. That is to say the techniques used at GTMO were federal crimes.
Here's a little
background on how the DoD thinks they dodged the UCMJ bullet...
That brings us, finally, to the Uniform Code of Military Justice which is the most difficult-to-crack part of the legal puzzle. The UCMJ is a federal statute that prohibits O.S. armed forces from, among other things, engaging in cruelty, oppression or maltreatment of prisoners (art. 93), assaulting prisoners (art. 128) (a prohibition that includes a demonstration of violence that results in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm), and communicating a threat to wrongfully injure a detainee (art. 134). The UCMJ plainly prohibits many of the techniques the military used against al-Qahtani and (as explained below) the Pentagon acknowledged as much but the military did not let the UCMJ stand in the way. Why? What was the legal theory according to which the Pentagon could blithely ignore binding O.S. law?
Frustrated that detainees at GTMO, especially al-Qahtani, "have tenaciously resisted our current interrogation methods," on October 25, 2002 General James Hill forwarded to the Pentagon, for its review, proposed "counter-resistance techniques." Although General Hill was "uncertain whether all the techniques... are legal under US law," he expressed his "desire to have as many options as possible at my disposal and therefore request that Department of Defense and Department of Justice lawyers review" some of the techniques.
The proposed techniques included many that were eventually used on al-Qahtani, including forced nudity, forced grooming, "[u]sing detainees['] individual phobias (such as fear of dogs) to induce stress," 20-hour interrogations, stress positions, and the use of mild physical contact such as grabbing, poking and light pushing. The proposed techniques also included water boarding (the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of suffocation), and "scenarios designed to convince the detainee that death or severely painful consequences are imminent for him and/or his family."
In an extensive legal memorandum appended to Major Hill's request, Staff Judge Advocate Diane Beaver acknowledged the problem posed by the UCMJ. She writes:
"O.S. military personnel are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The punitive articles that could potentially be violated depending on the circumstances and results of an interrogation are: Article 93 (cruelty and maltreatment), Article 118 (murder), Article 119 (manslaughter), Article 124 (maiming), Article 128 (assault), Article 134 (communicating a threat, and negligent homicide), and the inchoate offenses of attempt (Article 80), conspiracy (Article 81), accessory after the fact (Article 78), and solicitation (Article 82). Article 128 is the article most likely to be violated because a simple assault can be consummated by an unlawful demonstration of violence which creates in the mind of another a reasonable apprehension of receiving immediate bodily harm, and a specific intent to actually inflict bodily harm is not required."
Therefore, the Pentagon -- knowing that the UCMJ would prevent their preferred interrogation methods -- managed to get their sticky little fingers on a legal immunity ruling handed down by the Department of Justice via that helpmate of the
hoi polloi, Alberto Coming-soon-to-a-SCOTUS-near-you! Gonzales.
As in
Bush is the president, and we can do anything he wants: hes got a mandate.
* * * * * * *
Ok. Weve established that federal crimes as per the UCMJ are not
really federal crimes if BushCo says they're not. (Hmmm, I wonder... Is that a 'strict constructionist' reading of the Constitution?)
But wait! Whats this? Do we see some of these same
Amazing Senatormen in action, trying to
get to the bottom of this usurpation of the law?!!?
Sens. John Warner (Va.), John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.) plan to craft legislation that would have the effect of taking some control over those issues away from the executive branch namely the Pentagon and assert a new level of congressional oversight and decision-making power.
It is too early to tell if the White House would be onboard with such an effort. [See late-breaking developments below that force us to chuckle with hindsight re: this too early bit...] Previous congressional efforts to minimize the Pentagons control, most recently on the 2004 intelligence-reform bill, have met with some resistance [snicker] from administration officials.
However, opposing the Warner-McCain-Graham bill would be politically difficult. [hee-hee] Several influential Republicans and Democrats said the legislation has a significant chance of moving, [HAHAHA] principally because of the personal and political backgrounds of the three sponsors. All are Republicans who served in the military and supported the war in Iraq. [Oh, stop! Please! Yer killin me!]
Warner is considered a senior statesman on military matters and recently questioned President Bush about the war at a White House meeting with Senate Republicans. McCain is a national spokesman on defense and security issues and was a key supporter of Bushs reelection. And Graham has become a respected critic of the administration on military matters, even as he has asked probing questions of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at Senate hearings.
Meanwhile,
Loony Liberals get
into the act
WASHINGTON Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., today [7/21] announced plans to introduce an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, along with Sens. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., John Rockefeller, D-W.V., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., that would establish an independent commission to examine O.S. policies and practices for the treatment of detainees since September 11, 2001, including their detention and interrogation, and allegations of detainee abuse. The commission, which would be modeled after the 9/11 Commission, would report on its findings regarding the causes of detainee abuse, determine who should be held responsible for such abuses, and make recommendations for changes in O.S. policy and law relating to the treatment of detainees.
Well, dang! That sure seems like a mighty good idea these gents have come up with: get to the bottom of those pesky abuse allegations and establish once and for all what an enemy combatant can expect when he/shes thrown in the clink.
Looks like weve turned the corner on that torture thing. Whew!
Youd think that, but youd
be wrong.
The White House now is trying to cut these initiatives off at the pass. In a
Statement of Administration Policy issued yesterday, the Administration articulated its support for S.1042, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. But the SAP goes on to issue a rare and strongly worded veto threat, as well:
The Administration understands that amendments may be offered to establish a national commission on the detainee operations or to regulate the detention, treatment or trial of terrorists captured in the war on terror. The Administration strongly opposes such amendments, which would interfere with the protection of Americans from terrorism by diverting resources from the war to answer unnecessary or duplicative inquiry or by restricting the President's ability to conduct the war effectively under existing law. The Constitution and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution (Public Law 107-40, September 18, 201) provide the authority the President needs to conduct the war effectively and protect the American people.
If legislation is presented that would restrict the President's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice, the President's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill. (Emphasis in original.)
Fancy that: Even before any amendments are offered by leading conservative Senators of the President's own party and therefore before the White House has even seen what the statutory language might be, the President categorically concludes that the legislation necessarily would interfere with the protection of Americans from terrorism... by restricting the President's ability to conduct the war effectively under existing law.
... and
wronger...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The White House on Thursday threatened to veto a massive Senate bill for $442 billion in next year's defense programs if it moves to regulate the Pentagon's treatment of detainees or sets up a commission to investigate operations at Guantanamo Bay prison and elsewhere.
The Bush administration, under fire for the indefinite detention of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and questions over whether its policies led to horrendous abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, put lawmakers on notice it did not want them legislating on the matter.
In a statement, the White House said such amendments would "interfere with the protection of Americans from terrorism by diverting resources from the war."
Diverting resources? What? Halliburton hasnt gotten enough money yet?
But, hold on a minute... the lapdogs have bared their teeth...
Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, who endured torture as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, said after meeting at the Capitol with Vice President Dick Cheney that he still intended to offer amendments next week "on the standard of treatment of prisoners."
South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who was working on legislation defining the legal status of enemy combatants being held in Guantanamo, also said he would offer an amendment.
Let us hope that they are more effective than, say, voters in a US national election (to pick an example out of thin air...)
So, after making sure that international and domestic law need not apply to anything the Busheviks dont want it to, the obvious next step is to make sure no one can check up on the non-application of those laws. Pretty slick, huh? One could almost detect a glimmer of an intelligence behind the design.
Substitute "malevolence" for "intelligence" and you start to get the picture.
* * * * * * *
Rarely is
the question asked;
is our prisoners hurting?
Bush Administration Files 11th Hour Papers Blocking the Release of Darby CD Photos and Video Of Abu Ghraib Torture
On July 22, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) denounced the latest efforts of the Bush Administration to block the release of the Darby photos and videos depicting torture at Iraqs Abu Ghraib prison facility. On June 2, 2004, CCR, along with the ACLU, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense, and Veterans for Peace filed papers with the O.S. District Court, charging the Department of Defense and other government agencies with illegally withholding records concerning the abuse of detainees in American military custody. Since then, the organizations have been repeatedly rebuffed in their efforts to investigate what happened at the prison.
"Darby photos?" you ask. You remember the Darby photos...
8 May,
2004
WASHINGTON The Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal took an explosive turn yesterday with the revelation that photos and graphic videotapes not yet made public show abuses more horrific than those already seen.
Signaling the worst revelations are yet to come, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said the additional photos show "acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman."
"There are a lot more photographs and videos that exist," Rumsfeld testified before Congress. "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse. That's just a fact."
The unreleased images show American soldiers beating one prisoner almost to death, apparently raping a female prisoner, acting inappropriately with a dead body, and taping Iraqi guards raping young boys, according to NBC News.
5 July,
2004
(Translated from the original German)
Report Mainz
We research for further evidence for the imprisonment of children. And indeed. UNICEF in Geneva, the United Nations' relief agency for children. We find an explosive report. Just a few days old.
In this we read: "Children who had been arrested in Basra and Kerbala (
) were handed over as a matter of routine to an internment facility in Um Qasr".
The internment camp Um Qasr... Today it is too dangerous for reporters to travel to Um Qasr. The camp, a prison camp for terrorists and criminals. Here of all places, the Americans are thus said to have kept children interned like prisoners of war.
UNICEF writes: "The classification of these children as 'Internees' is worrying as it means an indefinite period of custody, without contact with their families, expectation of proceedings or a trial."
UNICEF does not yet want to comment on the as yet unpublished report. Their own staff in Iraq are not to be endangered. We look for further information, turn to the International Committee of the Red Cross. Their helpers inspect Um Qasr, Abu Ghraib and other places of detention. And after intensive talks, then further confirmation and even figures.
More and more I am so glad that I skipped that whole Greek shtick in college... fraternity hi-jinks such as these have never appealed to me for some odd reason. Go figure.
I must hate America.
* * * * * * *
So thats a quick review of our progress of late. First, we cleared any nasty ol legal fussiness out of the way so we could do whatever the hell we wanted to to our detainees in the
War on Terror© while happily thumbing our noses at anyone who deigned complain. That was steadfast; that was resolute; that was on the march. But suddenly we turn into girly-men and get all snippy and reactive when the feces hits the fan and were caught with our policies down around our ankles and our panties on our head? Sheesh!
BushCos
CYA machinations have been in overdrive this past week, and I know it must be hard work to juggle the detainee ball along with the Rove ball and the Roberts ball and the Bolton ball and the Downing St. ball all at the same time.
But you know what?
I . . . D o n t . . . C a r e.
We cannot,
cannot,
cannot allow them to get away with a speck of this crap simply because they are trying to get away with so mind-bogglingly much of it.
Never has
Eternal vigilance... been so critical. If we let our collective head get shoved any further in the sand, we will surely die from lack of air.
* * * * * * *
Well, zowie! That was fun. I hope Ive provided a handy little reference for your use and elucidation. Spread the word, if youve a mind to.
Thanks.